P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-01-07, 06:07 AM   #21
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

Congress just told Condi in plain english: Bush can NOT start a war with Iran without their approval. (Condi has never read the constitution)

Bush, being the pigheaded fool that he is, will anyway.

Impeachment will soon follow.

Along with much weeping and gnashing of teeth on faux news.

PS. It will be a double impeachment with both Bush and Cheney getting tossed from office at the same time and perhaps even into prison.

No chance in hell of president Pelosi pardoning them.
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-07, 12:19 PM   #22
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

In 2000 the Democrats got away with accusing Bush of doing what they were themselves attempting to do. If they try to steal the presidency a second time their legitimacy will be called into question far more often and with far more incredulity than what Bush has faced since he took office. This is why Pelosi will never allow an impeachment resolution come to a vote. They might kick Cheney out on trumped up charges, but not Bush, and especially not both at the same time.

Impeach Bush and you can look forward to an other 12 years of a congress controlled by the Republicans.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-07, 01:28 PM   #23
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer View Post
Impeach Bush and you can look forward to an other 12 years of a congress controlled by the Republicans.
If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.

As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-07, 02:49 PM   #24
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 9,921
Default

i'm not sure certain members of a supreme court installed by the father of the stooge they appointed president (and whose ties to the familly extend even deeper) is the group that can withstand an impeachment challenge if it came to that, but believe me the 2000 baker coup is the last thing preventing the dems from proceeding with the trial.

i'll say this however, unlike clinton if bush does stand before the house the senate verdict will also be guilty - if unlike nixon he's stupid enough to hang in that far.

i mean, i know he's stupid enough, but there is this low-class strain of clever opportunism that served him until now. that's probably no longer up to the task, but in any event it's bush inc i'm referring to.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-01-07, 01:26 AM   #25
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDixon View Post
If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.
The Dems don't care about the Constitution either. They'll weigh the two years of a stolen presidency against the dozen or more years of a legitimately elected congress and they'll come to the same conclusion I have. It doesn't mean they won't make an attempt, it only means they won't allow an impeachment to succeed.

Quote:
As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.
Politicians care only slightly more about their constituents' opinions than they do about the rule of law, but the Dems already know they can ride the wave of Bush's unpopularity through a decade of de facto control without impeaching the man. What's more they can maintain and even widen their influence without keeping their get-out-of-Iraq promises, if they play their cards right. Anything they can do to remind people of the Vietnam war, they're sure to do. If they're very smart they'll draw this war out as long as possible before making sweeping resolutions that make them out to be the saviors of America. That's how politicians think, and Democrats are politicians. They may share your beliefs but that doesn't mean they're really interested in serving them.

As long as the machine can make people believe Bush is the bad guy—the only bad guy—the Democrats will have carte blanche. Promise everything, achieve nothing; it doesn't matter as long as you get reelected.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-01-07, 01:04 PM   #26
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

no..It seems Bush is being controlled by Klingons
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-07, 11:05 AM   #27
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

China to US: No meddling in our Iran biz

BEIJING –China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a Chinese oil company’s planned investment in an Iranian gas field.

“We think this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate. Normal cooperation should not be interfered (with),” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

Asked if that meant Beijing believed the United States was interfering in its dealings with Iran, Liu said, “This is our position.”

The U.S. government expressed concern to Beijing last month about a planned investment by state-owned Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. in Iran’s Northern Pars gas field. Washington said major business dealings with Tehran were inappropriate while Iran is defying U.N. resolutions on its nuclear program.

CNOOC spokesman Liu Junshan said Thursday the company was still in talks with the Iranian side to develop the gas field and to help build liquefied natural gas facilities. He said no agreement had yet been signed, and declined to estimate the project’s value.

The Iranian Mehr news agency reported last month that the deal was worth $16 billion.

Liu’s comments came as Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Beijing. Olmert is seeking a more proactive Chinese role in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

Iran’s president has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, and Iran is widely believed to be trying to manufacture atomic bombs — a charge it denies.

In talks with Olmert Wednesday, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Beijing was firmly against nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran and wanted to see a diplomatic solution to the issue, Liu said at a press briefing.

But it is unlikely that Beijing will to bend to U.S. pressure to drop the gas deal, considering China’s growing thirst for oil and gas to fuel its economic boom.

China imported 980 million barrels of oil last year, making it the world’s third-biggest consumer of foreign oil. Its demand for natural gas is expected to rise 26 percent over the next five years.

China’s two major oil companies — China Petrochemical Corp. and China National Petroleum Corp. — are both either involved in gas projects in Iran or in talks to participate in developing gas resources.

Iran has seen the lure of its energy resources and other markets as a way to weaken the willl of U.N. Security Council members to exact harsh punishment over its nuclear program, which Tehran claims is for generating electricity.

The council, of which China is one of five permanent members, voted last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to abandon uranium enrichment — a process that produces the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.

http://digglicious.blogspot.com/2007...-iran-biz.html
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-07, 01:27 PM   #28
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-07, 04:22 PM   #29
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer View Post
We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.
sounds like a slamdunkin cakewalk and we all know how those turn out...
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-07, 10:55 PM   #30
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do.

Is there any better way to contain Iran?
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 02:36 AM   #31
Drakonix
Just Draggin' Along
 
Drakonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
Default

The U.S. probably will not need to do much - at least at first. Israel will probably nuke Iran.

I don't like that, but I can't really blame them under the circumstances - Iran has pledged to obliterate Israel.

Israel doesn't have much of a choice but to act if they want to survive, and I'm sure they do.

It will probably start with conventional bunker busters and low yeild nuclear bunker busters taking out hardened nuclear facilities inside Iran. The nuclear capabilities of Iran will be toast.

Might be the start of WW3. It's a very bad situation. The Muslims are going to have to face the facts that terrorism and jihad is not the answer to anything.

14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus wote "Everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - therein lies the real problem.
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors.

I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.
Drakonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 05:06 AM   #32
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer View Post
It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do.

Is there any better way to contain Iran?
yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 09:38 AM   #33
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDixon View Post
yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.
Other than my snarky comment about the Navy, I haven't suggested any preemptive action. You've gone the other way completely. Wipe them off the earth? There's no need for that either. I'm talking about containment, not obliteration. You think the neocons just want to invade? Well believe you me, they're looking for alternatives as well, not just because the Dems won a symbolic victory in Washington, but because it is impossible to invade Iran.

Anyway, the neocons are not my kind. I'm more of a libertarian if you remember.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 10:56 AM   #34
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

oh come now Mazer.. you have supported everything the neocons have done so far
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 11:25 AM   #35
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDixon View Post
yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.

Appeasement and abandonment will not work, it never has and it never will. That is what the world did with Germany and Hitler in the 30’s. Winston Churchill was the only leader brave enough to stand up against Hitler before WWII began, but he was alone and the world let WWII happen. In December there was a election in Iran and the moderate conservative’s won big, which means the moderates are tired of their President provoking the West while ignoring the horrible conditions inside his own country. That's a huge slap in the face to him personally, but it proves that the people of Iran aren't buying into their leader's apocalyptic agenda. So really it is the radicals in the country who are pushing for a confrontation with the West, not the average citizens. The best thing that can happen is the Iranian people change their own destiny, which I personally think most want. The worst thing the USA and the world could do is give up on Iraq. The USA must let the Iraqi and Iranian people know they are behind them no matter the cost, to bring democracy to their countries. You cannot say, we will help you but if the tuff gets going you are on your own. If the Iranian people see that seed of democracy planted right next door why wouldn’t they rise up and fight for those same freedoms! It takes sacrifice, it took a civil war in the USA to give Blacks the same freedoms all others had. Big Change is not easy, it is often deadly, who knows how America would be if Lincoln quit his efforts when the tuff got going. I know some will say Iraq is not Americas fight, and I say you made it your fight and America will have to stick with it. If the USA leaves Iraq, Iran will become a bigger problem and War will happen, there is no doubt in my mind, as some one said, Israel will not allow Iran to become a bigger threat to them, and an attack by Israel is attack from the USA in the minds of the radicals in the Middle East.

Quote:
September 26, 1938. That's just three days before Prime Minister Chamberlain signed the infamous Munich agreement with Hitler; an agreement that, to this day, stands as a shining example of how appeasement does not work.

With Chamberlain visiting Hitler in a futile effort to save the peace, it was Winston Churchill who stood up and appealed directly to the United States to get involved. Listen closely to his words on that day...

"If the Government and people of the USA have a word to speak for the salvation of the world, now is the time and now is the last time when words will be of any use...It will indeed be a tragedy if this last effort is not made in the only way in which it may be effective to save mankind from martyrdom."

Nine days later, after the Munich Agreement had been signed and the world cheered, Churchill spoke again...

"I will...begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing...what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat..."

At the time he made that speech in the House of Commons, Churchill could count on one hand the number of friends he had in Parliament. Who will stand up today and willingly face that same kind of abandonment and alienation? I will; and I hope you will, but which of our leaders has the guts to say what no one wants to hear: There is no appeasing those who do not want to be appeased. Whether or not we want to go to war is irrelevant; the war is already on -- the only question is if we'll fight back now or wait for the next December 7th.
Will history repeat itself?
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 11:39 AM   #36
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

so the US should never leave Iraq?
because you will not enforce democracy on them any other way

Quote:
Churchill used to trace his Zionism back to the days of the Balfour Declaration, describing himself as "an old Zionist." His attitude toward Zionism remained as passionate and as explicit following his return to Ten Downing Street in 1951. Now, however, with the State of Israel firmly in place, the images he entertained became perhaps more vivid, more colorful, and as ever imbued with historical resonance.

Thus, in June 1954, Churchill stated to journalists in the United States, "I am a Zionist, let me make that clear. I was one of the original ones after the Balfour Declaration and I have worked faithfully for it." This was merely the introduction. He went on: "I think it is a most wonderful thing that this community should have established itself so effectively, turning the desert into fertile gardens and thriving townships, and should have afforded refuge to millions of their co-religionists who suffered so fearfully under Hitler, and not only under Hitler, persecution. I think it is a wonderful thing." In a conversation with Israel's Ambassador in London, Eliyahu Elath, Churchill referred to Israel's population as "the sons of the prophets dwelling in Zion."
this fucker was a complete asshole... get real

because of him and Rothschild that there is such a problem there in the first place
Quote:
As Colonial Secretary, he virtually cut off Trans-Jordan from the Palestine Mandated territory (1921), and in the Churchill White Paper (1922) formulated what he believed would remain the basis of Anglo Jewish cooperation. His subsequent attacks against the measures proposed in the Passfield White Paper of 1939 were based on the premise that they constituted a breach of an agreed policy expressed in his own White Paper.
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 11:56 AM   #37
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi View Post
so the US should never leave Iraq?
because you will not enforce democracy on them any other way
Well it depends on what you mean by the USA should never leave. Did the USA really ever leave Japan or West Germany, (Germany today), after WWII?? 60 years later the USA does have interest in these countries. Are things there awful because of it?

And I am not forcing Democracy on anybody.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 01:35 PM   #38
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

I didn't mean to infer that you were personaly..

but the west and it previous incarnation has been enforcing democracy on a large portion of the human race for the last few hundered years
usually leaving some civil war in it's wake

Quote:
history does have a habit of repeating itself. To ignore the lessons of history is to be doomed to repeat it.
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 02:39 PM   #39
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

it's not the 1930s and Iran is not even close in comparison to Germany.
that argument not only doesn't fly, it sinks too.

Iran has done nothing to me or the USA and I do not believe they have plans to attack me or my country.

If they do attack us then we WILL make their country uninhabatible for a few thousand years.
I know this, you know it, and most important, Iran knows it.

Cheney & Bush are frothing at the mouth wanting to invade Iran for Israel but there is a big fly in the wrench and monkey in the ointment.
After their Iraq justifications proved to be ALL LIES, we the american people will not allow another illegal war. period, end of story.

they can rattle their sabers all they want but Bush & Cheney are both paper ducks now. the best they can hope for is to stall the withdrawel of troops from the lost war in Iraq until Bush leaves office.
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-07, 03:42 PM   #40
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDixon View Post
it's not the 1930s and Iran is not even close in comparison to Germany.
that argument not only doesn't fly, it sinks too.

Iran has done nothing to me or the USA and I do not believe they have plans to attack me or my country.

If they do attack us then we WILL make their country uninhabatible for a few thousand years.
I know this, you know it, and most important, Iran knows it.

Cheney & Bush are frothing at the mouth wanting to invade Iran for Israel but there is a big fly in the wrench and monkey in the ointment.
After their Iraq justifications proved to be ALL LIES, we the american people will not allow another illegal war. period, end of story.

they can rattle their sabers all they want but Bush & Cheney are both paper ducks now. the best they can hope for is to stall the withdrawel of troops from the lost war in Iraq until Bush leaves office.
hope you're right but the Prez seems hellbent for a constitutional confrontation.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2021